In part one, I concluded with the opinion that the state (read the government
at every level) should abstain from involvement in private agreements --
including marriage. Predictably, this struck a nerve with many conservative
readers of the article, since the idea of "gay marriages" is inimical
to many conservatives' deeply held beliefs regarding marriages and lifestyle
choices. Nevertheless, this issue appears to defy efforts to load it cleanly
into a partisan catapult to hurl recklessly into enemy territory, as is the
fate of many other issues.

Republicans and Democrats alike are finding the prospect of gay marriages
too bitter a pill to swallow, as reason becomes subordinate to fear. For
many of the Democratic presidential candidates, it is a fear of losing the "mainstream" vote
-- for others, it is an unfounded fear of the destruction of some "social
order" here in America. Oddly enough, many of these same individuals
are apparently devoid of fear of the continual destruction of individual
freedoms.

The gay marriage debate has been injected with pointed opposition from blacks,
who have encountered many comparisons drawn between this issue and the civil
rights movement in America. Such comparisons have been denounced as outrageous
by some -- claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, while skin-color
is not. It is pointless to manufacture some sort of discrimination hierarchy,
where one considers (institutionalized) discrimination by race more odious
than discrimination by sexual orientation. Ultimately, they are both discrimination
by the state, and therefore violate individual liberties.

Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, a number of conservative
columnists have put forth a variety of arguments opposing gay marriages.
Author and syndicated columnist Mona Charen believes that "if they insist
that homosexual unions be sanctified, we have no choice but to resist".
Exactly who is this "we" that she is referring to? How is this
resistance to occur? If by saying "we", she is identifying herself
and others of the same opinion with the state, then this implies that the "we" intends
to use the state to impose their will, beliefs, and desires upon others.
Surely, this isn't the "conservative" way -- is it?

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Pubic Policy,
writes the following in the Weekly Standard:

"Marriage was not just a private taste or a values issue or even
a religious issue, it was one of the handful of core social institutions
that
make limited government, and a constitutional republic, possible."

Apparently, she and others are unaware of the definition of a limited government.
The existence of private agreements, whether social or economic, unfettered
by the state, is a sine qua non of freedom -- which is what a limited government
allows. Any government that uses its monopoly power of law enforcement to
restrict private agreements is limited only by the ability of those in the
majority to impose their will on the citizenry.

It is also worth noting the pervasiveness of the word "institution" among
opponents of gay marriages when discussing the issue. This is not coincidental.
It indicates a thinly veiled attempt to place certain private contracts --
in this case, marriages -- within the purview of the state, by separating
it from other private agreements. Referring to marriages as "institutions" is
simply a diversion from acknowledging that marriages are indeed private social
agreements.

It is quite natural and understandable to possess differing opinions and
positions based on various philosophical, moral, or religious beliefs. However,
one cannot claim to believe in and support freedom, while in the same breath,
advocating the restraint of private agreements by government fiat.

Sean Turner is a member of the Project 21 Advisory Council of the National
Center for Public Policy Research, a regular columnist for RenewAmerica.us,
GOPUSA.com, MensNewsDaily.com, and a contributor to a number of news and
political websites. His commentary has also appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
and the Washington Times. Readers can email him at seanreplies@yahoo.com.

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

Marriage and the state by Sean Turner
(December 15, 2003)
Conservatives and liberals are now in the midst of a battle to determine how
the state should define marriage. Sean Turner believes that the debate should
be over something else entirely